Facebook Freedom

This week's reading talked about the internet's recent shift from being open and free and the end of the web to more and more "monetary compensations" for things like internet on smartphones, apps, and similar pay as you go internet technologies. This got me thinking, even though we choose to pay for smartphones and apps and similar thinks for the convenience of having them, does this mean we take for granted the internet that we don't have to pay for? For example, I remember about a year ago (?) there was a huge controversy over a rumor that we would have to start paying for Facebook. The rumor stated that users would have to start paying 50$ a month in order to maintain their account. This is ridiculous in the first place, since Facebook collects revenue through advertisements, games, apps etc. An entire group was made in protest to this claim which over 1 million people joined. Many other groups were created including one that said "I'm quitting facebook if they start to charge". People everywhere were talking about this, wondering if it was true and deliberating over what they would do if Facebook really did start to charge. The enormous amount of feedback received as a result of this rumor just goes to show that we truly do take Internet freedom for granted, regardless that we have to pay extra to have it on our phones or iPads. Charging for Facebook would have a HUGE impact on the business it received, and the company would probably not be able to survive it. You can read Facebook's response to these rumors, which basically say that Facebook will never charge their users, here.

YouTube stars

This past week in class we've been talking about the power of youtube. Whether it be a "macaca" moment or "vlog" bullying, youtube has been proven to have the power to completley change someones life. David Karpf argues in his paper that we underestimate the effect YouTube can have on politics, citing the "Macaca Moment". His study claims that while YouTube has a significant influence on politics, it is only a tool used by political organizations and not the center or direct result of campaigns. This got me thinking about the influence of YouTube beyond politics, and its ability to make an average joe an instant celebrity, simply by making a video. Mostly, these people enjoy their 10 minutes of fame, being exploited around the internet, whether thier videos are funny and shared on facebook or moving and emotional. I know my friends and I have exchanged countless YouTube videos of rediculous people who became semi-famous for a week or two. The "celebrities" fade in and out. One week they could be getting hundreds of thousands of hits, and could be circulated across the globe, and the next they could be back to reality, the same as they were before their youtube stardom. However, in some cases, these YouTube stars last a little longer than usual, and can gain attention from other media sources as a result of their YouTube videos. This article talks about how Youtube jumpstarted the careers of several extremely successful celebrites. LonelyGirl, whose videos we viewed in class, went on to land a role in the popular tv show "Greek". And most notably, Justin Bieber found his big break when his mom posted a video of him singing popular R&B songs and was discovered by a producer in Atlanta.

These are the success stories of talented and trained performers, but as I mentioned before, there are other YouTube stars out there who are either completley serious in posting videos that others find hilarious, or just post videos that they find funny and become instant hits. I have two recent examples of videos which have become insanely popular, and have resulted in stardom and other opportunities for their stars. The first is Antoine Dodson, who I am sure most of you have heard of. He was first seen on a news segment because an intruder had broken into his sister's home and tried to rape her. He was famously quoted saying "Hide ya kids, Hide ya wives, because everybody's gonna get raped" which subsequently has become a famous line and has made him into an internet sensation. His famous quotes from that video have been made into a music video, "The Bed Intruder Song" which he has been performing in various shows across the country. He also was featured on a commercial for a sex offender traffic application for Cell phones. His original video can be viewed here. Another recent "celebrity" is Keenan Cahill, a 15 year old who is most known for posting videos of himself in his bedroom, lip-singing along to his favorite songs. Recently, he was featured on the popular late night television show "Chelsea Lately" where he was given the opportunity to recreate one of these videos with famous rapper 50 cent. That can be viewed here. Although these two Youtube stars will probably be forgotten about in a couple of weeks, their stories just go to show how popular an everyday person can become by simply posting or even being featured (in Dodson's case) in a video on youtube.

Marie Claire at the center of controversy..... again

This week, I did my presentation on Healthy Living Blogs and the cyber uproar surrounding the Marie Claire article that was written about them. Recently, Marie Claire has come under fire again for an article posted on their website called "Should Fatties get a room?". This article was written about the new sitcom on CBS called Mike and Molly, which is about an overweight couple who meet at Overeaters anonymous. The author of the article, seen here, describes how uncomfortable she feels watching fat people on TV. Her exact words are "Yes, I think I'd be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with rolls and rolls of fat kissing each other ... because I'd be grossed out if I to watch them doing anything,". She says that she finds it aesthetically displeasing to even see fat people in general. Her defense is that the show is "implicitly promoting obesity". She ends the article by asking "Do you think I am being an insensitive jerk?". The answer around the internet has been an overwhelming YES. There have been numerous blog and twitter postings that call for the boycotting of Marie Claire, their and Facebook page has once again been bombarded with comments from appalled readers. People have called the author insensitive and small-minded among other things. The controversy was even shown on the today show, seen here -->http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39868583.

The online whirlwind created surround Marie Claire, is an example of the active participation talked about in the Jenkins article. This became a collaborative effort among those who were offended by the article, across the blog world, facebook, twitter and other forms of online open discussion, in which everyone could contribute and together could evoke a response large enough to be covered on such a widespread show as the Today show. There has been a online boycott of Marie Claire that thousands of people have rallied around. In the past, controversial articles would never have received this much feedback. However, with New Media, almost anyone can be a part of the effort to create buzz on a subject.